Rondout Valley board hears sharp split as superintendent recommends adding SRO, two private armed guards

RONDOUT VALLEY, N.Y. — The Rondout Valley Central School District board heard more than an hour of public comment and extensive discussion Wednesday after the superintendent recommended expanding school security by adding another school resource officer (SRO) and contracting two armed guards from a private firm.

Carrie Sheehy, a parent of an eighth grader and a 27‑year classroom teacher, told the board: “Hiring armed guards is the wrong direction.” Sheehy said the proposal was driven by fear rather than data and criticized what she described as a lack of transparency around vendor selection and the timing of a possible contract.

Other speakers were split. A district teacher and parent who identified themselves in comments urged the board to approve the additions, saying retired officers can build relationships with students and provide immediate response in a rural district where sheriff response times can be lengthy. “Please vote yes,” that speaker said.

Superintendent (name not stated on the record) laid out the administration’s rationale in a presentation to the board, citing behavior‑incident counts the district compiled since 2022 and arguing the rural district’s long emergency response times create coverage gaps. The superintendent said the district currently staffs one SRO shared across four campuses and recommended adding two security personnel so each campus would have on‑site coverage; the administration also delivered the vote totals from a recent capital project ballot that included security infrastructure improvements.

Administration materials presented details about the private firm discussed in the meeting, saying the company is licensed, conducts fingerprinting and background checks, provides weapons certification and supplemental training (active‑shooter response, suspicious‑package recognition, de‑escalation) and can participate in district trainings and joint programs with the Ulster County Sheriff’s Office. The superintendent said the district could require guards to keep weapons concealed and to complete district‑required trainings, including de‑escalation and behavior‑threat assessment (BTA) training.

Opponents repeatedly urged alternatives: independent security audits, stronger access controls, increased unarmed monitoring, enhanced counseling and restorative practices, and delay of any hiring decision until the district consults parents and staff more widely. Several speakers cited peer‑reviewed research and national reviews that question whether on‑site armed guards reduce shooting deaths and noted possible harms for students, particularly students of color.

The public comment period included requests that the board explain exactly which problems the proposed hires are intended to solve — whether the moves respond to weapons brought to campus, violent incidents, threats shared in chat rooms, or general concerns about long emergency response times — and many speakers said they had not received clear, timely answers from the administration before learning of the proposal.

The meeting record provided to the public did not show a final board vote on hiring private armed security during the portion of the meeting available. The superintendent’s recommendation was presented and extensively discussed; the board opened debate and took questions about training, discipline jurisdiction, concealed weapons and local hiring preferences for any contracted guards.

What’s next: Board members said they would continue discussion in the full board session. Community members urged the district to commission an independent security audit and to publish vendor background and training documentation before taking final action.